a thesis - Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

INVALIDATING CAUSES. 77
Guardian and ward (Hatch v. Hatch (1804), 9 Ves. 292; Mattland
v. Irving (1846), 15 Sim. 437);
Minister of religion and disciple and the like (see Hnguenin v.
Baaeley (1807), 14 Yes. 273; Allcardv. Skinner (1887), 36 Ch. D.
145 ; Morley v. Loughnan, (1893) 1 Ch. 736);
Solicitor and client (Liles v. Terry and idfe, (1895) 2 Q. B.
679 ; Willis v. Barron, (1902) A. C. 271; Wright v. Carter, (1903)
1 Ch. 27);
Medical adviser and patient (Mitchett v. Homfray (1881), 8
Q. B. D. 587).
But it is not confined to these. It applies " to all the variety
of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one person
over another," to quote from the argument of Sir S. Eomilly in
Huguenin v. Baseley.
Gifts liable to be set aside by the court on the ground of
undue influence have always been treated as voidable and not
void. Wright v. Vanderplank and Mitchell v. Homfray are authorities
for this. Moreover, such gifts are voidable on equitable
grounds only. The right to set them aside may therefore be lost
by laches and acquiescence, as the case of Alkard v. Skinner itself
shows.
MISTAKE.
If a settlement is made under a mistake, or a misapprehension
of the effect of it, it is likewise not binding on the settlor, and can
be set aside by the court. The case of Forshaw v. Welsby (1860,
30 Beav. 243) is an instance of this. The settlement in that case
was made when the settlor was very ill and, as the court found
(p. 247), when he thought he was going to die, and he did not
intend it to be operative if he survived. He, however, recovered
from his illness, having in the meantime lost all recollection of
having executed the settlement. Although there was no undue
influence or pressure exercised on the settlor, the court set the
settlement aside on his application.
Everett v. Everett (1870, L. E. 10 Eq. 405) was a somewhat
similar case, the settlement there being set aside apparently on the
ground that the settlor—a young lady who had only just attained
twenty-one—had not understood the effect of it; but the court was
also influenced by the fact that she had not had independent advice,
and that it was a rather imprudent disposition of her property.